t3hcanadian wrote:How many times have you been working, having fun, and/or whatever comes between those two, and you feel like you've done all of this before? I think it is because we have...just not in that particular sequence, or we have its just the sequence of following sequences that differ...

On the other hand, how come you never actually recall when the sequences occur, in a deja vu experience? (Including long after the experience).

Also, how come deja vu isn't merely a vague familiarity? Why in particular does it feel like it's not "right"?

hmmmm.....I didnt really think it through......
Im typing while supposed to be coding during class...
however you don't realize the sequence or when it happened is because you have already lived these experiences many times before....its just that you realize it is familiar....but as i stated before its because you've been through it before...just in a different sequence...

another reason that you dont remember when the sequence occured is that the human brain can only record so much data that all non-essential data is removed...e.i. daily events... and only big and different things stand out... death of a loved one....so forth... however the brain does not totally get rid of all the experiences it went through...its just keep..."cookies"...if you'll bear with me.... into a "cache" so that you get famikliar feelings about it but you cannot remember the details....

t3hcanadian wrote:hmmmm.....I didnt really think it through......Im typing while supposed to be coding during class...however you don't realize the sequence or when it happened is because you have already lived these experiences many times before....its just that you realize it is familiar....but as i stated before its because you've been through it before...just in a different sequence...

That doesn't explain mere familiarity, where you recall specifically that you've done something many times before, in a different sequence, but are not experiencing deja vu. For example, I've recollection of typing most of the words I'm typing right now, in a different sequence, into a forum and into IRC, but I'm not currently experiencing deja vu.

... deja vu is the feeling you get when you feel you've done what your doing now before right?
what im saying for the sequences is applicable in each little thing we do...also bigger things...like conversations about the same topic to someone who reminds you of the person you talked to about the samething...except you don't realize that they remind you of the other person neccessarily...

The claim for the existence of paranormal powers is NOT a new phenomonon. People in the ancient world used the stars to predict the future, people still do, because stars are thought to be magical, rather than collections of burning dust. Now if someone claims astrology has a basis, after it has been repeatedly proven wrong by science, that person will not be dignified with an answer in the scientific community, because he is said to be a waste of time, since his idea has been proven wrong already.

Now people had before claimed that god was UP there. Once sputnick went up "there" and found nothing, they said well god is everywhere. Believe it or not there are people who are now claiming, that if we can detect gravitons we can pin down where god is. They make this claim because we can not test it because we can't yet detect gravitons. These people are not great scientists, that should be addressed, they are out to make a buck, and the scientific community knows this. And so ignores them, not out of spite and discrimination for the logically challenged, but rather because no scientists wants to spend his life looking for something he is quite sure doesn't exist.

Lets talk about telekensis, talking using brains. What would be an evolutionary advantage to having developed this, how would this work in the brain, how can we detect it? since none of those answers are given, this is an absurd claim. It is as absurd as lets say someone saying he can fly by farting. Only problem is many people believe the latter and not the former. Just because people believe it though, doesn't mean it should be discussed in a scientific forum.

Now my problem is that this idea is quite logically absurd one, it can go into the general section, are maybe to a less scientific forum. If it is to be here, it should have SOME scientific basis other than my grandma once knew a lady who could i think like make bird fly the other way.

So I ask the mods to consider moving this thread the general section because of the lack of both serious and scientific content.

"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

I'd like to introduce a concept I call "the religion of science." I'm certainly not the first to think of it. The way that most of us, myself included and in this case PI in particular, treat science is very much the way people in the past have treated religion when they did not know better. Since PI does not have direct knowledge of how quantum mechanics works, he believes what the "priests" of science tell him. He believes this both because the majority of the priests are in agreement and because what they have to say generally agrees with his world view and seems to accurately describe the world in which he lives. This is exactly the same condition people lived in before the creation of science. Religion appeared to correctly and adequately explain the workings of the world, and people who did not know better believed those who claimed to have intimate knowledge of the workings of the universe.

My whole point is this. If you're not one of the priests yourself, if you have not conducted the experiments or recorded the observations, then you are essentially acting as a scientific sycophant. As virtually all of us are in this position of spitting back what the scientific priests have taught us, its better to not so fully subscribe to their ideas that you refuse to consider potential realities beyond the scope of their teachings.

VannA wrote:You (Nor anybody else) can identify what action is actually required to collapse a quantum waveform. Without being able to identify that, you have absolutely no way to indicate anything is impossible.

Are you saying that it is impossible to indicate that anything is impossible?

t3hcanadian wrote:... deja vu is the feeling you get when you feel you've done what your doing now before right?

Wrong. deja vu is the strange sense that you have done something before, where you have no specific recollection of exactly when you have done it before, and cannot recall enough information to predict further than circumstances otherwise allow into the future until it happens or the experience passes. It is a lot more specific than just a feeling you've done something before; we feel we've done similar things before quite a bit.

what im saying for the sequences is applicable in each little thing we do...also bigger things...like conversations about the same topic to someone who reminds you of the person you talked to about the samething...except you don't realize that they remind you of the other person neccessarily...

But again, this doesn't quite match. deja vu is an extended experience--it has a duration that surpasses single events, and during its duration, future events still feel the same way. And there's always the fact that the specific time at which you've done things before doesn't appear. In addition, quite often with deja vu, what you feel is that you've done the exact same thing before, as if you were actually in that particular time before.

Almost as a defining feature of deja vu, it doesn't feel right. Actual remembering, even of distant events, is inconsistent with deja vu--you'd think at least a minor portion of some event you experience, at least once, you'd suddenly have a specific recollection about if that were the case.

The future scares me! the future is just the past but you gotta turn on the light when you walk in the room, neva know whats waiting for you until you turn on the light, hence why i close my eyes and flail my arms infront of me!

When in darkness, when in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout!
Left, right, left, right, up, A+Y - Group hug combo!

Peshmerga wrote:If you knew the most likely future, could you change it?

There are only two probabilities that real (classical) events come in: 100% and 0%.

*coughcoughchaostheorycoughcough*

You don't need something anywhere near as complicated as chaos theory to make an unpredictable event. Just try to predict a not gate's output, whose input is hooked up to your prediction mechanism. (corollary: Even in the best of worlds, determinism doesn't entail predictability using devices within the universe).

My point is that "most likely", unqualified, means 100% likely. What other probability could it mean?

dostillevi wrote:I'd like to introduce a concept I call "the religion of science." I'm certainly not the first to think of it. The way that most of us, myself included and in this case PI in particular, treat science is very much the way people in the past have treated religion when they did not know better. Since PI does not have direct knowledge of how quantum mechanics works, he believes what the "priests" of science tell him. He believes this both because the majority of the priests are in agreement and because what they have to say generally agrees with his world view and seems to accurately describe the world in which he lives. This is exactly the same condition people lived in before the creation of science. Religion appeared to correctly and adequately explain the workings of the world, and people who did not know better believed those who claimed to have intimate knowledge of the workings of the universe.

Except you know, scientists arn't priests, and people doing research have PhDs. If you ever wanted proof, you could look it up, in a scientific encyclopedia, or you could email a prof in the field, and he would respond. Whereas if I questioned the existence of god during the times you speak of, I would be burned at the stake.

I would like to bring your attention to the recently closed research project PEAR. The reason it was closed is because they didn't really have many scientific findings, not because the priests of science didn't want the heretic scientists working there.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7371765

I would like to see some evidence that these evil scientists have been hiding from us. Please enlighten me.

"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

t3hcanadian wrote:... deja vu is the feeling you get when you feel you've done what your doing now before right?

Wrong. deja vu is the strange sense that you have done something before, where you have no specific recollection of exactly when you have done it before, and cannot recall enough information to predict further than circumstances otherwise allow into the future until it happens or the experience passes. It is a lot more specific than just a feeling you've done something before; we feel we've done similar things before quite a bit.

what im saying for the sequences is applicable in each little thing we do...also bigger things...like conversations about the same topic to someone who reminds you of the person you talked to about the samething...except you don't realize that they remind you of the other person neccessarily...

But again, this doesn't quite match. deja vu is an extended experience--it has a duration that surpasses single events, and during its duration, future events still feel the same way. And there's always the fact that the specific time at which you've done things before doesn't appear. In addition, quite often with deja vu, what you feel is that you've done the exact same thing before, as if you were actually in that particular time before.

Almost as a defining feature of deja vu, it doesn't feel right. Actual remembering, even of distant events, is inconsistent with deja vu--you'd think at least a minor portion of some event you experience, at least once, you'd suddenly have a specific recollection about if that were the case.

that may be so...but I still stand by my ideas... and I hope you stand by yours... I'm not saying that anyone is right or wrong I was simply stating my opinion... which I admit most of my opinions and ideas are thought through...but could use some more delving if I want to seriously explain how i feel

I would like to remind everyone that the internets is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

With that out of the way, maybe we could avoid the ad hominiem, demand for proof, and so on, and so forth. Everybody knows that there is no conclusive proof for metaphysical experiences. Fewer people understand that there is no conclusive proof that metaphysical experiences are impossible. With this understanding, I think the thread is best kept to exchanging interesting anecdotes and possible explanations thereof, rather than ad hominiem attacks.

People can predict the future.
In most cases, however, there is no guarantee that their prediction will be correct.
Later today, I will eat a steak-and-stilton pasty and a chocolate muffin, and drink some diet coke.I make this prediction based on the fact that I eat that exact same meal most weekdays (go variety!), and should be able to do so today.
If I do so, does that mean I predicted the future?

(And I don't want to hear any whining about the lack of variety in my lunch.)

They've determined part of the process that causes De Ja Vu (I believe it was a chemical, but I'm too tired to find the article and check). In tests, they created a false sense of recognition, and "bizarre feeling" associated with DeJaVu for completely new experiences.

Again, don't quote me, but I read somewhere else that the dream we have lasts only a few seconds out of our sleep pattern. So waking up at the end of it is either A) completely false or B) Not a proper dream, but a partly awake thinking state in which you're aware of your surroundings, and aware of the fact you're waking up.

Who says there's a difference between an amazing brain and premonition? Your mind is never aware of your thought patterns, so the ability to "guess" something a large portion of the time could be interpreted by someone who thinks more on the supernatural side as a "gift of clairvoyance" where as someone who takes the scientific approach would just consider it an accurate estimation.

If one knows all the factors of an environment, it is possible to predict exactly the outcome of any event. Of course, the accuracy of factors known is directly related to the accuracy of the prediction (for the simple minded - more factors, more accurate, less factors - less accurate). IMO, Chaos Theory only exists because we have difficulty in knowing all possible factors - if we did, I believe it would be null and void.

As an example, scrunch up a piece of paper, and throw it towards your bin at a high angle. You're effectively throwing blind, it's not just a straight throw but more chance - or so it seems. If you've got any ability, you'll make that throw over 70% of the time. Your mind is, without your input, calculating the angle required, the force required, wind resistance etc. Seems like guess work, but it's actually quite heavily considered. In much the same way, I can become Nostrodamus - seeing that in history as far as the eye can see, populations have increased, and with more interaction becomes more conflict - using this to predict world wars.

In my opinion, what is considered "predictions" are largely falsified in the brain - either we already know the info and allow/forget we knew it, so becomes a "prediction" that we already knew would happen, or false impulses created like Dejavu - or a highly accurate guess.
----------
I apologise for this largely rambling sample of my thoughts, but I'm sitting at work with nothing to do (system issue), and had a few, party thought through brainwaves. Hope it actually comes across as a legitimate debate.